One would think that “open source” is all about sharing. But that’s a misconception. Example: Try to use some GPL‘d code in your non-GPL OSS project. Oh, the humanity.
So called “proprietary” software at least believes in “buying love”. They won’t show you the source but for a price, you can at least use their work without many questions asked.
OSS is different. If you use the wrong license, you must be a moron (proof: You’re using a different license than me. QED) Nobody wants to share their hard work with morons!
Especially not since the process to select the “perfect” OSS license is so painful. You need to read legalese, try to understand it, reason with the nice smiling person on the other side of the padded wall (a.k.a “outside”) that you’re not insane – the rest of the world is and you can prove it.
Ever tried to get some OSS project to share their code under second license? It’s a lot of fun – unless you’re serious. Then … it’s not so much fun.
Why I’m ranting?
I spend a lot of time on stackoverflow. It’s cool. It’s full of source.
But can you use any piece of that source code in your OSS project?
Are you sure?
You are. Splendid. Do you really think a lawyer would see this the same way?
Posted by digulla 
Dark Views 
Oracle sells OpenOffice 3.3
17. December, 2010Image via Wikipedia
Wanna buy OO? Oracle gets in line with all the rip-offs who sell you open source software and, as a special bonus, it sells you a crippled version: For home users, you get a copy that supports just one language, one OS, no SDK, no MySQL connector. Oh, there is forum based support!
In which way is that better than the download from OpenOffice.org which I get with more features and for free?
Well, there isn’t a release on the project’s official website. I guess Oracle redefined the meaning of open source software: It’s just the source, now. Use your own compiler.
LibreOffice, here I come. They also don’t have a release but at least I feel that they’re honest and show some basic respect.
Share this:
Like this: